Without institutional backing, it's mere bigotry or prejudice.
It's the 'sociological definition' of racism.
Yes, but cancelled out a bit by actually being a Creepy Ass.
Moderator's Warning: |
People. Cease the personal attacks or there will be further consequences. |
A minority cannot be racist, as there is no state institutional backing.
I do. Yes there is racism. But it is not significant. Unless you're the type that see racism in everything...even when talking about money going down a black hole.
Dictionary definitions are not the end all be all meanings of words
People make that mistake much too often
TEco has a point somewhat about the gravity of racial slurs having less significance coming from an historically oppressed class. Doesn't make it socially polite or good etiquette but they're still not on an equal footing institutionally.
'Racism' is a form of bigotry or prejudice.
Do you believe one can be a racist in a vacuum? In other words, even if there is no state/institution-sanctioned racism?
Your own wiki link states at the beginning: "Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior."
Nothing in there about "institutional backing." Nothing about minorities not being able to be racist.
Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege. In Portraits of White Racism, David Wellman has defined racism as “culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.[23] Sociologists Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as “...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy.
Yes, a form based on race and with institutional backing.
I don't deal in hypothetical situations like that
That is not what your wiki link said.
Why not?
Look, it's all semantic, but "racism" usually implies action. While "prejudice" or "bigotry" is based on thought or speech.
I'll be honest, it's parsing. But that is what is usually used to differentiate the "harmless bigot" (the person who thinks / says terrible things about people of other races) from the "racist." This would be the person who denies a job, housing, or commits an act of violence against a person of another race or ethnicity.
Again, parsing, but what Paula Deen did (regardless of what you think of it) isn't what George Zimmerman did. And if - IF - Zimmerman's actions are determined to be based on race, then that's obviously racism at its worst. Paula Deen said some nasty things and fantasized about a ridiculously stupid wedding reception - but she didn't kill anybody.
Paula is (willfully or not) ignorant and doesn't deserve the scorn she received for admitting to being stupid. Zimmerman believed a black kid was automatically suspicious and (as it appears - I'll wait for final judgment) shot him. These are very different circumstances and we're talking about very different people.
From the wiki, as quoted earlier:
Because it's irrelevant.
That is a quote from the wiki link under definitions/sociological.
So I guess we should go by what some sociologists say. :roll:
I like the definition at the top. 95% of people would agree with it, including I'm sure the rest of the sociologists.
Aw, did your feelings get hurt when someone called you a cracker? Poor baby.
At least that word isn't used to dehumanize you like the n-word is to black people.
Its all about context. "Cracker" can be used to dehumanize just as saying "Nigga" can be used to humanize (and vice versa). I thought you were opposed to strict definitions and preferred context clues?
So you admit that my link and quote was legit, right? I mean, I clarified and you still claimed the quote was not there.
I just want to make sure that you acknowledge your error and false claim before we debate further.
n***er does not evoke the same feelings that cracker does
it doesn't